THE OTAGO GOLD MINING COMPANY, BLUE SPUR.

Otago Witness, Issue 1952, 18 April 1889, Page 12

THE OTAGO GOLD MINING COMPANY, BLUE SPUR.

(Tuapeka Times.) The following rather important communication has been placed at our disposal for publication :—

Lawrence, 4th April. The Manager Otago Company (Registered). Sir,— We are instructed by the Blue Spur and Qabriels Gully Consolidated Gold Company, Limited, to intimate to you that the company rescind the contract of purchase, and request the return of the moneys and shares paid under the contract made between your company and it. The ground of rescission is misrepresentation by your agent, who arranged to the company. If you decline to repay the moneys received and return the shares, will you be good enough to name a solicitor to accept service of process on your behalf ?— Tours obediently, Stout _n> Mondy. There are a few points of the missive which it may be of interest to note. The letter was written on the very day on which' the cable arrived here from London, stating that the Consolidated Company intended to rescind the contract owing to the misrepresentations of Mr Brown, and' also to institute proceedings against that gentleman for ' damages. < The genuineness of the cable in question is thus very conclusively established. But it. most strike most people as strange that the Consolidated Company, through their solicitor, should make

such an allegation against a gentleman holding a position of trust in their service. . . . The public . may not be aware that previous to Mr Brown's departure for London, a temporary transfer of the entire property whioh was about tn be placed on the London market was made over to him, so that he occupied the position of vendor, and was alone responsible for all his subsequent actions. The Otago Company were, in terms of the transfer, guaranteed a specific sum for their property, so that if the vendor received a larger sum than that guaranteed by him to the claim owners the advantage was his own. This necessarily brief explanation; in view of legal threats-, should tend to make clear the relative positions of the Otago Company and the Consolidated Company. There is another point of Sir Robert Stout's letter to which we desire to direct attention. The Otago Company are asked to return the purchase money received by them on the ground that misrepresentations have ' been made. But the Consolidated Company have never touched — never put a pick in — the Otago Company's claim. How, then, can it be said that miareprje- ; sentation has been made in reference to this property ? How can the money be claimed on such grounds? The ground has never been tested. Where is the proof, then, even though the Otago Company took full responsibility for Mr Brown's statements* that anything, said amounted to misrepresentation ? In the case of the Tailings Com* pany'e claim) the case may be different, as the ground has been thoroughly tested, with results now pretty generally known.